mirror of
https://github.com/nektos/act.git
synced 2026-04-26 01:15:51 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #1518] Act does not exit correctly when a job in a matrix fails #773
Labels
No labels
area/action
area/cli
area/docs
area/image
area/runner
area/workflow
backlog
confirmed/not-planned
kind/bug
kind/discussion
kind/external
kind/feature-request
kind/question
meta/duplicate
meta/invalid
meta/need-more-info
meta/resolved
meta/wontfix
meta/workaround
needs-work
pull-request
review/not-planned
size/M
size/XL
size/XXL
stale
stale-exempt
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/act#773
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @KnisterPeter on GitHub (Dec 19, 2022).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/nektos/act/issues/1518
Originally assigned to: @KnisterPeter on GitHub.
Bug report info
Command used with act
Describe issue
When one job in a matrix of jobs fail, act might still exit with a zero exit code.
I would be expected to fail a job, if one job fails to succeed.
Link to GitHub repository
No response
Workflow content
Relevant log output
Additional information
No response
@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2022):
I want to add that continue-on-error is also not working for a job matrix. Here my test of my act clone, which fails in act
@KnisterPeter commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2022):
continue-on-erroron job level is not implemented at all. That would be a new feature and should not be part of this bug report.But sure, you are right, it is a missing feature and not working currently.
@ChristopherHX commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2022):
ok, in my own codebase is the handling of merging job results / outputs of matrix legs next to continue-on-error handling so this came up to my mind.
You are right, it seems like continue-on-error would be a new feature